Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

MarkE has been lying about my spreadsheet since the beginning.


He never showed any proof, just said you can't do that, it was wrong, broke, broken and other lies and of course he had the other sock puppets repeating his lie to brainwash the normal people.


I knew that the two Input formulas were equivalent overall as they always gave the same answer. It is easy to understand why, when you compare the two as follows:


                                               PSI Average                           Volume
PSI Average *  Volume = (.5 * pWater * water height) * (water height * area)
             Integral F*ds = (.5 * pWater *         water height^2             * area)


Found another proof at Wolfram Alpha. The math proof spreadsheet attached shows an alternate form from Wolfram Alpha using my P Avg. * Volume as input. The alternate form result shown by Wolfram Alpha is the same as E Input. Compare D9 to D16.


I previously asked him for proof, no response, and it is obvious why the master and the sock puppets did not ask for proof, but why did you others that support his lie by restating it, not ask for proof?


This isn't the first time he lied about my Input formula. On the three column example, he showed his proof, but used the wrong constant as a deception, to make my results appear incorrect.


The PSI and Volume results are in my original spreadsheet, because they are required by Hydraulic Engineers. So I just use these established values with P Avg. * Volume.


When someone displays math skill, it could just mean they use math software. But, a warning flag should go off when they state that their single math method is the only way to get the correct results.


If anybody would like to see the results, enter '(0.5 (P S+P F)) (F-S) A' at the Wolfram Alpha website. After press the More button to the right of Alternate forms and see more forms, all give the same results.

LarryC I see anohter of the disciples of duplicity are back.  I told you many times that you can calculate energy in a single column as 0.5*pressure*volume.  What you cannot do  for the general case is average pressure across multiple columns in order to find the total energy in all those columns.

Given your example of 0 / 3 / 3  the total energy is: K*0*0 + K*3*3 + K*3*3 = K*18  If you had averaged the pressure as you would obtain K*2*(0+3+3) = K*12.

[MarkE]

Professionalism in the Travis sense means:

"I have something, but I won't show it."

Correction it means:  "I claim to have something extraordinary but show no evidence to support my claims."

[TinselKoala]

I am surely not as smart as you,
Being higher than others is not in my nature, I respect peoples skills and respect their weakness - you exploit them for your ego.
Now, what kind of scientists troll out the actual discussion, speak over, insult researchers, talk about invisible unicorns, make fun of personal photo's...... Dr stories..........
Not good scientists..... that is for sure.
If your posts were deleted -well first - that would be a benefit to mankind - and second 80% of the threads trolling would vanish.
And no one did it to you.... so stop crying about it.
Grow up.

What are you talking about, honest Wayne Travis? Who is "whining" about anything? YOU are the one who is supposed to be providing evidence for your claims, and it is increasingly obvious that you cannot.

Now, think about this. The FACT that you are still running around on the street, with your devices and your claims intact, is in fact one of the strongest possible bits of evidence that you are completely FOS, off the wall and your claimed "invention" is totally bereft of value. Haven't you heard about the USA's policy of taking inventions that have national security implications and sequestering them, the inventors and the patents? It is a real policy, they really do do that. The DoD, the CIA, KGB, Mossad, GCRU.... all of those folks would be tripping over each other to get to you first, because if you had what you claim to have, the military implications and applications would be immediately obvious even to the weakest mind on your "team". Maybe not to you, though.

So carry on trying to divert attention from your lack of evidence, I am happy to continue to point out the holes in your arguments.

[mrwayne]

I am happy to continue to point out the holes in your arguments.

Just think how much benefit you could add if you instead added to the discussion, problem solved, without demanding your butt was kissed.
Now that would be an impressive TK.
I know - not your job ...... but who made you king mudd slinger..... Nobody.

[mrwayne]

I have stood up for the innocent while you attacked like a pack of wild dogs...
This has gone on for two years - too long.
Every time anyone discusses the actual physics of the ZED - insults and slander non stop.
To All; (not yelling)
IS THIS WHAT YOU ALL WANT FROM OU.COM
ARE YOU SICK OF IT YET??
Are the carnival barkers entertainment - does anyone actually want to learn.
Have you ever read TK, Mh, ME, Pirate, ask.... how does the original input produce output and not get consumed.....
No - they don't want you to hear the answer.
I have brought it up 50 times.... and it is the heart of the ZED's ability to produce free energy.
Not everyone who visited completely understood the ZED - but not one single engineer left un amazed.

Those four men - have robber you from the truth - if this is what you want - a soap opera
Well just let them go on. But if you really want free energy - something better change.
Stefan, Moderators - is this what you want.
You say you want proof - well call off the dogs long enough for a case to be made.... trolling is not helping.
Good night